Things to Know Before Sending a Horizon Europe Proposal

If you’re somewhat familiar with the European research ecosystem, chances are you have heard of Horizon Europe. This is the EU’s ninth Framework Program for Research and Innovation (R&I) and actually represents the most ambitious and comprehensive public funding initiative of its kind. With a budget of €95.5 billion for the 2021-2027 period, it is arguably the primary engine for executing the EU’s core strategic objectives. Here is an analysis of the Horizon Europe landscape and a practical playbook for preparing what might be a competitive proposal.

The €95.5 Billion Vision: Goals, Policy Alignment, and Economic Impact

Horizon Europe is the EU’s key funding program for research and innovation for the period 2021-2027, succeeding Horizon 2020. The program operates with a budget of €95.5 billion, a significant increase over the €77 billion budget of Horizon 2020.

The scale of this budget reflects the ambition vested in the program. Its overarching goals are threefold: to tackle climate change, to help achieve the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and to boost the EU’s competitiveness, growth, and job creation. The European Commission posits a significant return on this investment, estimating that for every euro invested, the program generates up to €11 in economic gains through scientific advancements, new technologies, and enhanced industrial competitiveness.

Horizon Europe introduces several new elements designed to increase its effectiveness and impact compared to previous framework programs. These novelties represent a strategic evolution in the EU’s approach to funding R&I.

• European Innovation Council (EIC): A central new feature, the EIC is conceived as a “one-stop shop” to support breakthrough, disruptive, and deep-tech innovations that are often too risky for private investors alone. EIC provides a pathway from early-stage research to market deployment and the scaling up of innovative companies, with a significant 70% of its budget earmarked for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

• EU Missions: This is a new instrument in the EU R&I toolkit. Missions are portfolios of actions designed to achieve bold and measurable societal goals within a set timeframe, typically by 2030. They are co-designed with citizens and stakeholders to make relevance more likely and are intended to mobilize resources across different sectors and policies.

• Mandatory Open Science: Horizon Europe elevates Open Science from a recommended practice to the program’s modus operandi. It mandates open access to all scientific publications resulting from funded projects and requires the application of open science principles throughout the research lifecycle, including the management of research data according to FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable).

• A New Approach to Partnerships: The program streamlines and rationalizes the landscape of European Partnerships. The new model is more objective-driven and strategic, aiming to forge more ambitious collaborations between the EU, national authorities, and the private sector to achieve common policy objectives and strengthen the European Research Area (ERA).

• Simplification of Rules: An effort has been made to reduce the administrative burden on beneficiaries and increase legal certainty. This includes simplified cost reporting options, such as the increased use of lump-sum funding, and a higher threshold (€725,000) for requiring a Certificate on the Financial Statements (CFS), which reduces the need for ex-post audits for many participants.

Here’s a summary of Horizon Europe indicative budget allocation (2021–2027):

Budget Component	Indicative Allocation (EUR)	Key Focus Areas
Pillar I – Excellent Science	€25.0 billion	Frontier research (ERC), researcher mobility and training (MSCA), world-class research infrastructures.
Pillar II – Global Challenges & European Industrial Competitiveness	€53.5 billion	Collaborative R&I addressing societal challenges and enhancing industrial leadership.
• Cluster 1: Health	€8.2 billion	Health outcomes, disease prevention, and transformation of health systems.
• Cluster 2: Culture, Creativity & Inclusive Society	€2.3 billion	Democratic governance, cultural heritage, and inclusive socio-economic transitions.
• Cluster 3: Civil Security for Society	€1.6 billion	Disaster resilience, border security, crime prevention, and cybersecurity.
• Cluster 4: Digital, Industry & Space	€15.3 billion	Digitalisation, industrial technologies, advanced manufacturing, and space innovation.
• Cluster 5: Climate, Energy & Mobility	€15.1 billion	Climate science, renewable energy, and sustainable mobility solutions.
• Cluster 6: Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture & Environment	€9.0 billion	Biodiversity, sustainable agriculture, circular economy, and environmental monitoring.
• Joint Research Centre (JRC)	€2.0 billion	Independent scientific evidence and policy support.
Pillar III – Innovative Europe	€13.6 billion	Breakthrough innovation (EIC), innovation ecosystems (EIE), education–research integration (EIT).
Part IV – Widening Participation & Strengthening the ERA	€3.4 billion	Bridging R&I disparities across Europe and reforming national R&I systems.
Total Horizon Europe Budget	€95.5 billion

Pillars, Clusters, and Core Components

Horizon Europe’s architecture is structured in a way meant to support the full spectrum of research and innovation activities, from fundamental discovery to market uptake. This structure is organized around three main “Pillars,” complemented by a horizontal component focused on strengthening ERA. Let’s take a look at each pillar.

Pillar I: Excellent Science – Frontier Research and Skills

Pillar I, with a budget of €25 billion, is all about reinforcing and extending the performance of the Union’s science base. Its approach is predominantly “bottom-up,” meaning that researchers are free to propose projects in any field of science and technology without being constrained by predefined thematic priorities.

• ERC: The ERC is the premier European funding organization for frontier research. It provides long-term grants to individual principal investigators who wish to pursue ground-breaking, high-risk/high-gain research in Europe. ERC grants are awarded through open competition based solely on the criterion of scientific performance.

• Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA): The MSCA program supports researchers at all stages of their careers. It funds their training, mobility, and career development through outstanding doctoral and postdoctoral programs and collaborative research projects. A key feature is the “triple I” dimension: international, inter-sectoral, and interdisciplinary mobility, aiming to equip researchers with a diverse set of skills and experiences.

• Research Infrastructures: This component focuses on developing and consolidating world-class research infrastructures across Europe. It provides funding to build new, and integrate existing, facilities, resources, and services—whether single-sited, distributed, or virtual—that are essential for the research community to conduct top-level research and foster innovation.

Pillar II: Global Challenges & European Industrial Competitiveness – Collaborative, Top-Down R&I

Pillar II concerns budget, with an allocation of €53.5 billion, and represents the program’s “top-down” or “directed” dimension. This pillar is designed to tackle major societal challenges and reinforce Europe’s industrial and technological capacities by funding collaborative R&I projects that directly address the policy priorities of the Union and the UN’s SDGs. Projects under this pillar are expected to generate new knowledge, develop technologies and solutions, and provide evidence for better policymaking. Participation is typically through multi-partner consortia that bring together academia, industry, public bodies, and civil society organizations.

Funding is organized into six thematic “clusters,” which are broad, interdisciplinary areas of intervention.

• Health: Addressing challenges like cancer, rare diseases, and pandemic preparedness, and supporting the transformation of health and care systems.

• Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society: Strengthening democratic values, safeguarding cultural heritage, and tackling socio-economic inequalities.

• Civil Security for Society: Countering crime and terrorism, enhancing border management, protecting critical infrastructure, and improving disaster resilience.

• Digital, Industry and Space: Fostering a competitive, digital, low-carbon, and circular industry, ensuring a sustainable supply of raw materials, and developing leadership in space technologies.

• Climate, Energy and Mobility: Driving the transition to a climate-neutral society through advances in climate science, clean energy, and sustainable, smart, and resilient transport.

• Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment: Protecting biodiversity, promoting sustainable food systems, ensuring clean water and air, and advancing the circular and bio-economies.

This pillar also houses the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s in-house science and knowledge service. The JRC provides independent, evidence-based scientific and technical support for EU policies throughout the policy cycle.

Pillar III: Innovative Europe – From Lab to Market

With a budget of €13.6 billion, Pillar III wants to make Europe a frontrunner in market-creating innovation and fostering a conducive environment for innovation. More specifically, it aims to support the most talented innovators, startups, and SMEs in scaling up their ideas and connecting regional and national innovation ecosystems.

• EIC: As the flagship component, the EIC is designed to identify, develop, and deploy high-risk, breakthrough innovations. It provides a continuum of support from early-stage research to financing and scale-up.

• European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT): The EIT is meant to strengthen Europe’s innovation capacity by integrating the “knowledge triangle” of business, education, and research. It operates through a pan-European partnerships known as Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs), each dedicated to a specific societal challenge.

• European Innovation Ecosystems (EIE): This component works to create more connected and efficient innovation ecosystems at the European level. It supports actions that connect national and regional innovation actors, including public authorities, businesses, and academia.

The Horizontal Component

Underpinning the three pillars is a dedicated horizontal component with a €3.4 billion budget aimed at reducing disparities in R&I performance across Europe. This part of the program consists of two main lines of action:

• Widening participation and spreading performance: This includes measures like Teaming, Twinning, and ERA Chairs, which are designed to build capacity and unlock the potential of researchers and institutions in countries that are lagging in R&I performance.

• Reforming and Enhancing the European R&I system: This supports activities aimed at improving the overall policy framework for research and innovation in Europe, with a focus on gender equality, ethics, and science communication.

As you can see, these are quite distinct pillars. Each requires different application strategies. Pillar I rewards depend to a large extent on scientific performance. Pillar II demands collaborative strength, a clear response to a top-down challenge, and a balanced proposal across performance, impact, and implementation. Pillar III seeks entrepreneurial vision and a credible business case for market disruption. If you’re an applicant, it’s recommended that you first perform a strategic self-assessment to determine which “culture” your project idea belongs to, as a mismatch between the project’s nature and the pillar’s objective is more likely to lead to proposal failure.

A Few Things About the Five EU Missions

EU Missions are a novelty in Horizon Europe, representing a shift towards a more impact-focused, portfolio-based approach to R&I funding. The Missions are meant to deliver concrete solutions to some of society’s greatest challenges by setting ambitious, measurable, and time-bound goals to be achieved by 2030. A key characteristic is their co-design process, which actively involves citizens, stakeholders, the European Parliament, and Member States to ensure the goals are societally relevant and perhaps even inspirational.

Missions are funded through calls for proposals located within the relevant clusters of Pillar II and are intended to create synergies with other EU, national, and regional programs to maximize their impact. The five EU Missions are:

• Adaptation to Climate Change: The goal is to support at least 150 European regions and communities in their journey to become climate resilient by 2030. This involves developing innovative solutions and encouraging societal transformation to cope with unavoidable climate impacts.

• Cancer: Working in synergy with Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan, this mission aims to improve the lives of more than 3 million people by 2030 through better prevention, earlier diagnosis, more effective treatments, and enhanced quality of life for patients and their families.

• Restore our Ocean and Waters: This mission has ambitious targets for 2030, including protecting 30% of the EU’s sea area, restoring marine and freshwater ecosystems, restoring 25,000 km of free-flowing rivers, and significantly reducing plastic litter, nutrient losses, and the use of chemical pesticides.

• 100 Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities: The mission aims to support and promote 100 European cities in their systemic transformation towards climate neutrality by 2030.

• A Soil Deal for Europe: The objective is to establish 100 living labs and “lighthouses” (demonstration sites) to lead the transition towards healthy soils by 2030.

Now Let’s Talk about European Partnerships

European Partnerships are designed to bring the European Commission together with private and/or public partners to address pressing challenges through concerted R&I initiatives. They aim to avoid the duplication of investments and overcome the fragmentation of the R&I landscape in the EU. The program is expected to channel up to 50% of the Pillar II budget into these partnerships. There are three distinct types of partnerships, each with a different governance and implementation model:

• Co-programd European Partnerships: These are established between the Commission and private (and sometimes public) partners, typically industry associations. They are based on a contractual arrangement in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines shared objectives and commitments. The EU’s financial contribution is delivered through dedicated calls for proposals within the standard Horizon Europe work programs.

• Co-funded European Partnerships: These involve a partnership between the EU and a consortium of national and regional research funding organizations. Based on a joint program agreed by all partners, the EU co-funds their activities (typically joint transnational calls for proposals) from the Horizon Europe budget, with the EU contribution usually being 30% or 50% of the total public investment.

• Institutionalised European Partnerships: These are the most integrated form of partnership, requiring a specific legal basis (an EU regulation) and the creation of a dedicated implementation structure, known as a Joint Undertaking (JU). They are long-term partnerships, often involving industry, and are used only when a high degree of integration is necessary to achieve ambitious goals that other instruments cannot. Examples include the Clean Hydrogen JU and the Key Digital Technologies JU. The Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) of the EIT are also a form of institutionalised partnership.

With 49 partnerships launched in the first half of Horizon Europe across all clusters, these initiatives cover a vast range of topics, from innovative health to clean aviation and from circular bio-based Europe to artificial intelligence.

Time to Speak about EIC

EIC is arguably the most radical novelty in Horizon Europe, representing a fundamental shift in how the EU supports innovation. With a dedicated budget of €10.1 billion, its mission is to identify, develop, and scale up breakthrough, deep-tech, and disruptive innovations with the potential to create new markets or transform existing ones. The EIC’s approach is modeled on a venture capital logic, providing not just funding but also a suite of Business Acceleration Services (coaching, mentoring, networking) to help innovators succeed.

The EIC’s blended finance model, particularly in its Accelerator scheme, marks a significant departure from traditional R&D grants. It moves the EU from being a passive funder to an active, risk-sharing investor. It likely feels as if applicants to the EIC are not just writing a research proposal but pitching a business to an investor. The credibility of the team’s entrepreneurial vision, the robustness of the business model, the market analysis, and the scalability plan are all important, as is the technology itself. The EIC is structured along a seamless innovation pathway with three main funding schemes, each targeting a different stage of maturity, measured by Technology Readiness Levels (TRL):

• EIC Pathfinder: This scheme supports the early stages of research on radically new technologies (TRL 1-4). It funds high-risk/high-gain projects that explore ambitious scientific ideas with the potential to become future technological breakthroughs. Pathfinder projects are typically collaborative, involving consortia of universities, research organizations, and high-tech SMEs. Funding is provided as a grant of up to €3 million (or €4 million for specific challenges).

• EIC Transition: This scheme acts as a bridge between research and application. It funds the maturation and validation of promising technologies emerging from EIC Pathfinder or European Research Council (ERC) Proof of Concept projects, moving them from experimental proof-of-principle to demonstration in a relevant environment (TRL 4-6). It also supports the development of a solid business case and model for the innovation’s future commercialization. It is open to single applicants (SMEs, spin-offs, research organizations) or small consortia, with grants of up to €2.5 million.

• EIC Accelerator: This is the EIC’s flagship scheme, designed to help individual SMEs (in particular startups and spin-outs) scale up their innovations and bring them to market (TRL 5/6 to 9). The Accelerator offers a unique form of “blended finance”: 1) A grant component of up to €2.5 million (non-dilutive funding) to cover innovation development costs; and 2) an investment component of up to €15 million in direct equity, managed by the EIC Fund, to finance market deployment and scale-up. The EIC Fund is a unique entity owned by the EU, established to make direct equity investments and provide “patient capital” to bridge the funding gap for Europe’s most promising innovators, crowding in other investors in the process.

Last but Not Least: Your Guide to Funding

Successfully securing funding from Horizon Europe begins long before any text is written. It starts with a strategic process of confirming eligibility, mastering some essential digital tools, identifying the most suitable call for proposals, and assembling a powerful consortium.

A Few Words on Eligibility

Horizon Europe is designed to be open to the world, but specific eligibility rules govern who can participate and receive funding. Any legal entity—such as a university, research centre, SME, large corporation, non-governmental organization (NGO), or public authority—can apply, provided it has the necessary operational and financial capacity to carry out its proposed tasks.

The standard eligibility condition for most collaborative actions, which are predominant in Pillar II, requires a consortium of at least three independent legal entities, each established in a different country. Of these three, at least one must be established in an EU Member State. Beyond this minimum, consortia often include more partners to ensure the necessary breadth of expertise and impact.

Eligibility for participation and funding depends on the country where the legal entity is established:

• EU Member States: Entities from the 27 EU countries are fully eligible for participation and funding.

• Associated Countries: A number of non-EU countries have signed an association agreement with Horizon Europe. This status grants their legal entities the same rights and obligations as those from EU Member States, including eligibility for funding. This list is dynamic but includes countries like Norway, Iceland, Israel, Turkey, Ukraine, and, since 2024, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand. Some newcomers, like Canada and New Zealand, have an association limited to Pillar II.

• Low- and Middle-Income Third Countries: A specific list of over 100 low- and middle-income countries are automatically eligible for funding, even without an association agreement, to encourage international cooperation.

• Other Third Countries: Entities from other non-associated, high-income countries (e.g., the United States, Japan, Australia, Singapore) can participate in collaborative projects but are generally not eligible to receive funding from the EU budget. They are expected to secure their own funding for their part of the project.

Note that some specific calls or instruments may have additional eligibility criteria. For example, the EIC Accelerator is primarily for individual SMEs, and MSCA grants have specific rules regarding researcher mobility and experience. You will want to check the specific eligibility conditions listed in the call topic documents.

A Step-by-Step User Guide to the EU Funding & Tenders Portal

The EU Funding & Tenders Portal is the single gateway for all interactions with Horizon Europe. It is a comprehensive digital platform where applicants find funding opportunities, manage their proposals, and, if successful, handle all aspects of grant management and reporting. The key steps for any new user are:

• Create an EU Login Account: This is the universal authentication service for accessing a wide range of European Commission web services.

• Register Your Organization: Before submitting a proposal, your organization must be registered in the Participant Register to obtain a unique 9-digit Participant Identification Code (PIC). This PIC will be used in all future proposals and grant agreements. The process requires providing basic legal and financial information about your entity.

• Search for Funding Opportunities: The portal’s search function allows users to filter calls for proposals by program, keyword, cluster, or deadline. The portal includes a partner search tool where organizations can post offers of expertise or search for partners for a specific call topic. All proposals must be submitted electronically before the call deadline. The system allows coordinators to manage the proposal, invite partners, and upload the necessary documents. The portal is the official repository for all essential documents, including work programs, call texts, proposal templates, and the comprehensive Online Manual, which provides a step-by-step guide to all portal processes. Individuals can register in the expert database to be considered for roles as proposal evaluators or project monitors, which is an excellent way to gain insight into the program.

How to Identify a Good Call

Funding opportunities in Horizon Europe are not arbitrary; they are the result of a structured strategic planning process. Understanding this hierarchy should help you grasp the context of a call and align your proposal more effectively.

• The Strategic Plan: This is a high-level, multiannual document that sets the main policy drivers and R&I priorities for Horizon Europe. It defines the “destinations,” or the expected impacts, that the program aims to achieve.

• The Work Programs: These are the key operational documents for applicants. They are typically biennial (e.g., 2023-2024, with extensions into 2025) and translate the strategic priorities into concrete “topics” for which the Commission invites proposals. There is a main work program covering the pillars, as well as separate work programs for instruments like the EIC and ERC.

• The Call Topic: This is the specific text within a Work Program that a proposal must address. It is the “exam question.” A meticulous analysis of the call text is the most important step in proposal preparation. Applicants must pay close attention to every detail, particularly the sections on “Expected Outcomes” (the specific effects the project should help to achieve) and “Scope” (the problem to be addressed and the activities expected to be carried out). A proposal that does not precisely and explicitly address all elements of the call topic will be deemed out of scope or will score poorly in the evaluation, likely regardless of its scientific brilliance.

Best Practices for Partner Search

For the majority of Horizon Europe actions, the consortium is the project. Assembling the right team is a core strategic task that directly influences the proposal’s evaluation.

A winning consortium is more than just a collection of well-known institutions. It must be a balanced, complementary team that brings together all the necessary expertise to achieve the project’s objectives. This often means covering the full value chain, from fundamental research (universities, research centers) to technology development and commercialization (SMEs, large industry) and validation/uptake (end-users, public authorities). Geographical diversity and gender balance within the team are also important considerations and can even be used as tie-breakers for equally-scored proposals.

The search for partners should begin early. Effective methods include:

• Utilizing the partner search function on the Funding & Tenders Portal for specific call topics.

• Contacting your National Contact Point (NCP), who can provide partner search assistance and connect you with their counterparts in other countries.

• Attending brokerage events and info days organized by the European Commission or other networks, which are designed to facilitate networking.

• Leveraging your existing professional and institutional networks.

It is important to vet potential partners. A partner’s reputation and past performance are key indicators. A partner who is unresponsive, unreliable, or lacks commitment during the high-pressure proposal writing phase may be a significant risk and may cause problems during the project implementation phase. It is typically a good idea to have direct conversations, ask for evidence of relevant experience, and clearly define roles and expectations from the outset. The composition of the consortium tells a story about the project’s credibility and its ability to deliver on its promises; it’s likely best for every partner to have a clear, justified, and indispensable role.

The Art of the Proposal

The core of any Horizon Europe application is the narrative proposal, known as Part B. This document is where the consortium makes its case for funding. It is structured around the three main evaluation criteria: Performance, Impact, and Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation.

Performance is about convincing evaluators that the project is scientifically and technologically ambitious, sound, and goes significantly beyond the current state of the art. It defines WHAT the project aims to achieve.

Objectives and Ambition is where you set out the project’s objectives in a clear, concise, and credible manner. The objectives should demonstrate a tangible advance, yet achievable within the project’s timeframe and budget. You can formulate them as SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) objectives. This part must articulate how the project goes “beyond the state-of-the-art” by doing a comprehensive overview of current knowledge and technologies in the field, identifying the gaps or limitations that the proposed project will address. The novelty and originality of the idea must be made explicit.

In Methodology the proposal details HOW the objectives will be achieved. It must describe the overall concept and the specific research and innovation methodologies that will be employed. This includes the underlying models, assumptions, and approaches. Evaluators look for a methodology that seems well-suited to achieving the objectives. This subsection is also the place to describe interdisciplinary approaches, the integration of the gender dimension into the research content (if relevant), and the quality of the project’s Open Science practices, including the plan for managing research data and other outputs.

The Importance of Impact

The Impact section has become the new center of gravity in Horizon Europe proposals and is frequently the section where applications lose the most points. It requires a shift from a purely academic focus to demonstrating the project’s potential to create significant and lasting societal, economic, environmental, or technological value.

Pathway to Impact is the most important part of the section and requires a detailed, credible narrative describing how the project will contribute to the “Expected Outcomes” and wider “Impacts” that are explicitly stated in the Work Program topic. This is not about listing potential benefits but about describing the logical sequence of steps—the “pathway”—that will lead from the project’s results to these wider impacts. It must address the likely scale and significance of the project’s contribution. The narrative must extend beyond the project’s lifetime, convincing evaluators that the work will have a lasting legacy.

Measures to Maximise Impact (Dissemination, Exploitation, and Communication – DEC) is the subsection that should present a concrete and tailored plan for maximizing the project’s impact. It is essential to distinguish between the three key activities:

• Communication: Measures to promote the project and its results to a multitude of audiences, including the media and the public.

• Dissemination: Activities to spread the project’s results to the relevant scientific communities, industry, and other stakeholders who can build upon them.

• Exploitation: A plan for the concrete use of the results, whether for commercial purposes (new products, services), in further research, or for policymaking.

The DEC plan should not be a generic list of activities. It must be specific, with clearly defined target groups, channels, and key performance indicators (KPIs) for each action, and be directly linked to the project’s objectives and the overall pathway to impact.

The Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation

This is the section where you must convince evaluators that the consortium has the operational capacity, resources, and management structure to execute the project successfully and on time. It is about demonstrating feasibility and credibility.

Work Plan and Resources is the subsection where you break down the project into a logical and coherent structure of Work Packages (WPs). Each WP should have its own objectives, a list of tasks, and clear deliverables (tangible outputs like reports, prototypes, or data sets) and milestones (key check-points in the project’s progress). The proposal must include a realistic timeline, often visualized with a Gantt chart, and a detailed justification of the resources required, particularly the allocation of person-months per partner per WP.

Capacity of Participants and Consortium is the subsection is where the strength of the consortium is showcased. It needs to describe the role of each participant, demonstrating how their specific expertise and resources are key for the project’s success. It should also describe the consortium’s governance structure, including decision-making processes, communication flows, and how potential conflicts will be managed. The goal is to present the consortium as a cohesive, well-integrated team that is more than the sum of its parts.

Risk Management is also a subsection, as a high-quality proposal should demonstrate some foresight. This involves identifying potential risks that could hinder the project’s implementation (e.g., scientific challenges, technological hurdles, partner drop-out, resource issues) and presenting credible and concrete mitigation strategies for each identified risk.

A “golden thread” should run through these three sections. The methodology in Performance must produce the results needed to create the effects described in Impact. The work plan in Implementation must provide the structure and resources to carry out the methodology. The consortium described in Implementation must possess the skills to deliver on both the Performance and Impact promises.

Consider the Importance of Cross-Cutting Priorities for a Competitive Edge

In Horizon Europe, certain horizontal or “cross-cutting” issues are integral components of research quality and responsibility that are actively assessed during evaluation. A proposal that substantively integrates these priorities can provide a significant competitive advantage.

Open Science

As the new modus operandi of Horizon Europe, Open Science practices must be addressed throughout the proposal. This goes beyond a simple commitment to publish. The two key mandatory elements are:

• Open Access to Publications: All peer-reviewed scientific publications arising from a project must be made immediately available in open access, meaning free of charge for the end-user.

• Research Data Management: Projects generating or reusing data must develop a Data Management Plan (DMP). This plan must detail how the data will be managed during and after the project, and specifically how it will be made FAIR—Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. The quality of Open Science practices is an evaluation criterion under the Performance section.

The Gender Dimension

Horizon Europe strengthens the focus on gender equality in three distinct ways:

• Gender Equality Plan (GEP): As of 2022, having a formal GEP in place is an eligibility criterion for all public bodies, higher education institutions, and research organizations from EU Member States and Associated Countries wishing to participate in the program. The GEP must be a published document and meet certain mandatory requirements.

• Gender Balance in Research Teams: While not a rule, striving for gender balance in the consortium and among personnel is strongly encouraged and can be used as a ranking factor for proposals with the same score.

• Integration of the Gender Dimension in R&I Content: This is a core evaluation aspect under the Performance criterion. Applicants are expected to analyze whether and how sex and/or gender aspects might be relevant to their research topic. For example, a project developing a new medical device should consider whether its design and function might affect different genders differently. A thoughtful integration of this dimension can significantly strengthen the scientific quality of the proposal.

Ethics and Research Integrity Dimension

All proposals must undergo an ethics review. Applicants are required to complete an “Ethics Issues Table” as part of the proposal, identifying any potential ethical concerns related to their research (e.g., involving human participants, personal data, animals, environmental impact). For each issue identified, the proposal must describe how it will be handled in compliance with ethical principles and relevant legislation. Ignoring or inadequately addressing ethical issues is a common reason for proposal rejection.

Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) Dimension

There is a strong expectation within Horizon Europe that technological and scientific innovation should be embedded in a deep understanding of its societal context. Therefore, many topics, particularly within Pillar II, require the meaningful integration of expertise from the Social Sciences and Humanities. SSH researchers can contribute to understanding user needs, analyzing socio-economic impacts, addressing ethical and legal aspects, and facilitating public engagement, thereby strengthening the relevance and impact of the project as a whole.

The Evaluation Process

The fate of a Horizon Europe proposal is determined by a highly structured evaluation process. Understanding how this process works—who the evaluators are, what criteria they use, and how scores are assigned—can come in handy.

Once a call deadline passes, proposals undergo a multi-step evaluation managed by the relevant European Commission service or Executive Agency.

• Admissibility and Eligibility Check: First, proposals are checked against formal criteria: Was it submitted on time via the portal? Is it complete? Does the consortium meet the minimum eligibility requirements?

• Individual Evaluation: Each eligible proposal is assigned to at least three independent, external experts who are chosen from the Commission’s expert database based on their field of knowledge. These experts work remotely and individually to read the proposal and score it against the three core evaluation criteria, writing an Individual Evaluation Report (IER) with comments justifying their scores.

• Consensus Meeting: The experts who evaluated the same proposal then convene (usually remotely) for a consensus meeting, moderated by a Commission staff member. The goal is to discuss their individual assessments and agree on a common position, resulting in a single set of scores and comments for the proposal. This becomes the Evaluation Summary Report (ESR).

• Panel Review: Finally, a panel of experts reviews all the ESRs from a given call topic to ensure consistency across all evaluations. The panel then produces a final ranked list of all proposals that have passed the evaluation thresholds.

For calls with a two-stage submission process, only the Performance and Impact criteria are evaluated in the first stage, often with higher scoring thresholds. Only those proposals that pass this first hurdle are invited to submit a full proposal for the second stage, which then undergoes the complete evaluation process.

The evaluation is performed by individuals who are often from diverse scientific and industrial backgrounds. It’s typically best for complex ideas to be communicated simply and to avoid jargon. A proposal that mirrors the structure of the evaluation form and uses visual aids like tables and graphics may make the evaluator’s job easier and is more likely to be scored favorably.

Each of the three main criteria—Performance, Impact, and Quality and Efficiency of the Implementation—is scored on a scale from 0 to 5, with half-marks possible.

5 – Excellent: The proposal successfully addresses all aspects of the criterion. Any shortcomings are minor and do not undermine the overall quality.

4 – Very Good: The proposal addresses the criterion very well, with only a small number of minor flaws.

3 – Good: The proposal addresses the criterion well, but several flaws are present.

2 – Fair: The proposal broadly addresses the criterion, but there are significant weaknesses.

1 – Poor: The criterion is inadequately addressed, or there are serious inherent weaknesses.

0 – Failure: The proposal fails to address the criterion or cannot be assessed due to missing

To be considered for funding, a proposal must typically pass two challenges:

• Individual Thresholds: A minimum score of 3/5 is usually required for each of the three criteria.

• Overall Threshold: A minimum total score of 10/15 is typically required.

Proposals that pass all thresholds are ranked by their total score. Funding is awarded to the highest-ranked proposals until the call budget is exhausted. For proposals with identical scores, the call documents specify tie-breaking rules. Priority is often given first to the score for the Impact criterion, then to the score for Performance. Further tie-breakers can include factors like geographical diversity, gender balance in the consortium, and the level of SME participation. After the evaluation, all applicants receive the ESR for their proposal, which contains the final scores and the evaluators’ comments.

Bottom Line: Maybe You Got This

Getting funded by Horizon Europe is quite a cool experience, yet sometimes more challenging than winning Eurovision. That being said, having the right strategy, some savvy storytelling, and a proposal that hits all the EU’s sweet spots (impact! alignment! buzzwords!), you’ve got a real chance.

And let’s not forget about the unsung heroes of this saga: your National Contact Points (NCPs). These lovely, government-funded humans exist solely to help you not screw this up. They’ll point you to the right funding call, help decode the fine print, and maybe—just maybe—save your proposal from the “meh” pile. And if you need some extra help, we (On Treks) are here for you.